Planning commission forwards 55-acre annexation petition to River Falls council after residents raise notice and density concerns

The River Falls Planning Commission on Dec. 2 voted to forward to city council a petition to annex about 55 acres at the southeast corner of County Highways U and M and 1060th Street, recommending a mix of B-3 (highway commercial/mixed-use) along the intersection and R-2 medium-density residential for most of the site.

Assistant Director of Community Development Emily Shively presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner, noting the commission’s role is to advise council on land-use and zoning. Shively said the property owners — identified in the petition as Delbert F. Johnson and Elaine H. Johnson Revocable Trusts, working with developer BW Homes — asked to bring the area into the city and apply the future land-use map’s mixed-use and medium-density residential classifications. Shively told commissioners the site is contiguous with city limits, has portions guided for mixed use and medium-density residential in the comprehensive plan, and that staff recommends B-3 for the mixed-use node and R-2 for the residential portions. She said a capital cost study and budget study will be prepared to identify infrastructure-extension costs and revenue implications and that an annexation agreement would formalize cost responsibilities if development proceeds.

Several nearby residents urged the commission to either deny annexation or require lower-density zoning. John Witt, who described himself as living directly adjacent to the parcel, asked that the site be zoned R-1 (single-family) to match surrounding agricultural and single-family uses and to preserve neighborhood character. Christine Witt said mailed notices listed the wrong address and arrived late (her letter was dated Nov. 20, with postmarks Nov. 19), and she asked the commission to consider tabling the matter so more neighbors receive timely notice. Joe Gruber and Kelly Bukowski raised concerns about increased traffic on 880th Avenue, light pollution, parking shortages seen in other dense developments and called for vegetation screening and compatibility with existing large-lot patterns.

Commissioners sought clarification from staff about how the 'growth preservation' designation differs from a prohibition on development, whether B-3 allows vertical mixed use (retail on the first floor with residential above), and how utility connections would be extended. Shively responded that the growth-preservation label does not prevent growth but signals areas where infrastructure extension may be more challenging; the small southern portion of the annexation has no topographic constraints and can be served efficiently. She said B-3 can allow vertical or horizontal mixed use and explained that water and sewer would need to be extended from Discovery Drive; the capital cost study will outline those costs and the annexation agreement can apportion them, including upsizing costs when appropriate.

A commissioner moved to forward the annexation ordinance to city council with a favorable recommendation; the commission approved the motion by voice vote. Shively noted that city council will have at least two meetings (Jan. 13 and Jan. 27) where the item will be heard, creating additional public opportunities.

What happens next: the commission’s recommendation and staff studies (capital cost and budget analyses) will go to city council for formal action and any annexation agreement terms; staff will note public-notice concerns in the record so council and staff can address them during the review.